1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to yard maintenance tools, specifically to a cleaning tool for cleaning the gaps in architectural wooden decks.
2. Prior Art
A common architectural feature of the modern house is the exterior wooden deck. The surfaces of most wooden decks are constructed of boards which are nailed or screwed to an underlying set of cross beams. In almost all cases, adjacent deck boards are spaced apart slightly so as to form gaps therebetween. The gaps allow drainage, ventilation, and expansion and contraction of the boards. However, these gaps collect leaves, small flowers, flower petals, acorns, twigs, seeds, seedpods, pebbles, dirt, etc. The unsightly debris, when wet with water, cause decay of the deck boards and the cross beams thereunder. Therefore, it is known that deck gaps should be cleaned regularly to maintain the appearance and structural integrity of the deck. However, the proper cleaning of these gaps has been hindered by the lack of an effective tool specifically made for the job.
A list and analysis of the known cleaning methods are as follows:
(a) The use of low-pressure water, (such as a garden hose with nozzle), is safe but only partially effective. This method is highly ineffective for removing solid debris lodged between the boards, and as the board spacing narrows, becomes increasingly ineffective in removing loose debris. This method also uses water in very large quantities, which is costly in many municipal water districts, and is wasteful of our ever diminishing water resources. PA1 (b) The use of high-pressure water, (such as is generated by portable, high-pressure washing apparatus), also has several disadvantages. This apparatus is costly to buy or rent, is inherently very messy, and its safe use is problematical for the average homeowner. High-pressure water may also serve only to drive debris deeper into the gap between deck boards. This method may also damage the wooden surface or strip away the surface coating, making repair or refinishing necessary. PA1 (c) Using brooms, brushes, or other bristled devices is very ineffective where any solid debris is present. A bristled device flexible enough to penetrate deeply between the deck boards will not exert sufficient force on most solid debris to dislodge it. Wire brushes and other devices with very stiff bristles will dislodge the debris in many cases, but the bristles damage the deck surface. Bristled devices also tend to lose bristles with use, making them increasingly ineffective. Bristled devices will also snag or catch on any cracks or checks present on the edges, corners, or surfaces of the boards. PA1 (d) Screw-drivers, awls, putty knives, knives, and other bladed or pointed-type tools have all been used to clean the gaps between deck boards. These tools all can be effective on lodged or deeper debris, but have major disadvantages. The need to kneel, sit, crouch, or bend while using these tools is a major ergonomic liability. The ergonomic difficulties inherent in using these tools dictate a slow rate of work. But the most important disadvantage is in the realm of safety. It is unsafe to use these tools for a purpose for which they were not designed or intended, and serious injury could result from this practice. PA1 (a) to provide a tool which can remove the debris from the spaces or gaps between deck boards in an effective manner; PA1 (b) to provide a tool which will work efficiently on both loose and lodged debris; PA1 (c) to provide a tool which will pull lodged debris up and out of the gaps, not lodge it deeper; PA1 (d) to provide a tool which will work efficiently on debris of all sizes; PA1 (e) to provide a tool which reaches to sufficient depth to clean the whole of the space between adjacent deck boards; PA1 (f) to provide a tool which can remove debris from a wide range of gap sizes; PA1 (g) to provide a tool which will not catch on most cracks or checks that exist on the deck boards; PA1 (h) to provide a tool which will not damage either the deck boards or any surface finish applied to them; PA1 (i) to provide a tool which can be configured so that whatever the angle at which the handle is held relative to the deck surface, no interference with the deck support beams or joists is possible; PA1 (j) to provide a tool which works with the operator applying either a pulling or pushing motion to the tool handle, thus providing economy of movement; PA1 (k) to provide a tool which is comfortable to use for operators of different heights; PA1 (l) to provide a tool which complies with modern standards of ergonomics; that is, no kneeling or bending is required to operate the tool; PA1 (m) to provide a tool which is safe to use if used properly; PA1 (n) to provide a tool which is long-wearing if used properly; and PA1 (o) to provide an effective tool which may be offered to the public at an affordable price.
Devices that were designed for other applications are generally not suitable for cleaning deck gaps. U.S. Pat. No. 172,891 to Poole (1876) shows a stick for stirring and fishing out clothes from a laundry bath. It includes an elongated handle A, a nose piece B, and two rod-shaped hooks C. It cannot be used for cleaning deck gaps, because the thick, round hooks cannot be inserted into the narrow gaps. If the diameters of the hooks are suitably reduced to fit the gaps, then they will become so thin that they will be easily bent or broken during normal use. The spherical tips of the hooks also hinder the insertion thereof into the gaps. Furthermore, the cylindrical nose piece has a flat end, so that the depth at which the hook is inserted into a gap will vary according to the angle at which the handle is held. Each hook will only reach the greatest depth in a gap when the handle is held flat against the deck--an awkward position which makes maneuvering the tool very difficult.
U.K. patent 1,142,779 to Dech (1969) shows a stick for operating high-tension disconnecting switches. It includes a hook 2 held in a rounded nose piece on the end of a handle 1. The tips of the hook are spaced at different distances from the center of the round nose piece. If the tool is used for cleaning deck gaps, the tips will extend to different depths in the gaps, where one tip may extend too deeply and get caught by the deck's underlying cross beams, and the other tip may not extend deeply enough to clean the entire depth of the gap. Although the nose piece on the Poole device can be modified according to the teaching of the U.K. patent, so as to provide a rounded nose piece, it will retain all its other disadvantages. Furthermore, no prior art hook device discloses that it can be used for cleaning deck gaps, or that their hooks should have particular dimensions. The hooks on the prior art devices are most likely too long or too short for cleaning deck gaps, so that they will either extend too far down and get caught or hindered by the cross beams, or they will not extend far down enough to properly clean the gaps.